DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2532#0106
NOTE A (See page 11).
In tins ease, as in so many others when problems of ancient archaeology and history are con-
cerned, it is important to consider the personal equation of the authors and the conditions and cir-
cumstances under which they wrote, before using or quoting passages from them, as historical or
critical evidence. In this special case it is well to bear in mind that, of the two travelers, Pau-
sanias has a bias in the direction of folk-lore and mythography, pervading and sometimes over-
powering his antiquarian or archaeological interests ; while Strabo is a geographer with a stronger
historical bias, possessed of more sober and critical insight and a pronounced appreciation of
literary tradition, the Homeric poems being to him the centre of literary importance. While we
may often deplore the inaccuracy and credulity of Pausanias, or at least the inadequacy of his
description of objects which to us are of supreme interest; while we are often impatient and irri-
tated with him for his diffuse excursions into the regions of unprofitable hearsay, when he omits
the mention or to describe most important facts and monuments, we must recognize that these
very faults make him a most useful source of information to the student of folk-lore and mytho-
logy, and even to the historian who has to consider the local traditions and the earliest sources of
information.
Strabo, on the other hand, clings to the historical facts before him, and probably draws much of
his information from such writers as Ephorus : and when he goes beyond these he turns to literature,
— the literature which he had before him, — and ignores folk-lore and tradition. To him Homer
is not only the poet, 6 iroir]T-tjs, but also the central repository of the earliest lore and the only source
from which trustworthy information concerning the earliest history of the Hellenic land and
Hellenic traditions can be had. Thus in common with writers of his own age, and with most
scholars of our own times, he becomes in matters archaeological and historical a Homer wor-
shiper. But we are now in a position to assert that, as regards the earliest history of Greek life
and Greek religion, Homer himself becomes the more useful and instructive the more we supple-
ment the Homeric poems by the records of local and popular traditions in word and stone. These
are scattered through the authors and exhumed from the earth, they point to still earlier periods,
and show the constitution of the material which the genius of the great epic poets has put into
such splendid and monumental artistic order.
Thus it is that Strabo, who is fully informed with regard to the Mycenaean and Argive periods
in the early history of the Heraeum and of the whole plain and country, is practically ignorant of
or ignores the Tirynthian period. There are two main causes for this omission on his part.
(1) When he wrote about this district the city of Argos had a great history, and was thus natu-
rally the centre on which he stood in order to focus and to observe the historical region which he
attempted to explore critically. Mycenae was in time and space nearest to Argos, and he could
follow more readily its destruction by the latter, and its previous hegemony. This led him as far
back as the Homeric period, and here he stopped. Tiryns and Midea, on the other hand, were
deserted 1 in his time, and seemed at best only to have been " fortresses," 2 apparently as opposed
to cities. He herein forgot that the early cities consisted both of such a fortress or citadel, built
of more durable material, and of the town itself, built of perishable material, spreading round the
foot of the citadel, such as the Ilissarlik-Troy, the early Mycenae itself, and probably the early
city of Argos.
(2) The second cause for the omission of Tiryns in Strabo's consideration of the historical
phases of the Argive plain and the Heraeum lies in the fact that he restricted himself to Homeric
evidence, and that, in his admirable attempt at a careful examination of the passages in Homer, he
1 Strab. VIII. 0. 11. .'573 c epTj/xos 5' eVr! naittivri - rrj fiev ovv TipvvSi up/xriTTiptw xp?i<raiJ-0tu SoKe'i.
[TirynsJ ital rj irXrjffiov Mi5ea.
In tins ease, as in so many others when problems of ancient archaeology and history are con-
cerned, it is important to consider the personal equation of the authors and the conditions and cir-
cumstances under which they wrote, before using or quoting passages from them, as historical or
critical evidence. In this special case it is well to bear in mind that, of the two travelers, Pau-
sanias has a bias in the direction of folk-lore and mythography, pervading and sometimes over-
powering his antiquarian or archaeological interests ; while Strabo is a geographer with a stronger
historical bias, possessed of more sober and critical insight and a pronounced appreciation of
literary tradition, the Homeric poems being to him the centre of literary importance. While we
may often deplore the inaccuracy and credulity of Pausanias, or at least the inadequacy of his
description of objects which to us are of supreme interest; while we are often impatient and irri-
tated with him for his diffuse excursions into the regions of unprofitable hearsay, when he omits
the mention or to describe most important facts and monuments, we must recognize that these
very faults make him a most useful source of information to the student of folk-lore and mytho-
logy, and even to the historian who has to consider the local traditions and the earliest sources of
information.
Strabo, on the other hand, clings to the historical facts before him, and probably draws much of
his information from such writers as Ephorus : and when he goes beyond these he turns to literature,
— the literature which he had before him, — and ignores folk-lore and tradition. To him Homer
is not only the poet, 6 iroir]T-tjs, but also the central repository of the earliest lore and the only source
from which trustworthy information concerning the earliest history of the Hellenic land and
Hellenic traditions can be had. Thus in common with writers of his own age, and with most
scholars of our own times, he becomes in matters archaeological and historical a Homer wor-
shiper. But we are now in a position to assert that, as regards the earliest history of Greek life
and Greek religion, Homer himself becomes the more useful and instructive the more we supple-
ment the Homeric poems by the records of local and popular traditions in word and stone. These
are scattered through the authors and exhumed from the earth, they point to still earlier periods,
and show the constitution of the material which the genius of the great epic poets has put into
such splendid and monumental artistic order.
Thus it is that Strabo, who is fully informed with regard to the Mycenaean and Argive periods
in the early history of the Heraeum and of the whole plain and country, is practically ignorant of
or ignores the Tirynthian period. There are two main causes for this omission on his part.
(1) When he wrote about this district the city of Argos had a great history, and was thus natu-
rally the centre on which he stood in order to focus and to observe the historical region which he
attempted to explore critically. Mycenae was in time and space nearest to Argos, and he could
follow more readily its destruction by the latter, and its previous hegemony. This led him as far
back as the Homeric period, and here he stopped. Tiryns and Midea, on the other hand, were
deserted 1 in his time, and seemed at best only to have been " fortresses," 2 apparently as opposed
to cities. He herein forgot that the early cities consisted both of such a fortress or citadel, built
of more durable material, and of the town itself, built of perishable material, spreading round the
foot of the citadel, such as the Ilissarlik-Troy, the early Mycenae itself, and probably the early
city of Argos.
(2) The second cause for the omission of Tiryns in Strabo's consideration of the historical
phases of the Argive plain and the Heraeum lies in the fact that he restricted himself to Homeric
evidence, and that, in his admirable attempt at a careful examination of the passages in Homer, he
1 Strab. VIII. 0. 11. .'573 c epTj/xos 5' eVr! naittivri - rrj fiev ovv TipvvSi up/xriTTiptw xp?i<raiJ-0tu SoKe'i.
[TirynsJ ital rj irXrjffiov Mi5ea.